https://theacc.com/news/2023/10/30/acc-a...model.aspx
Scroll down to the first graphic, did you notice the asterisk? “Top 2 teams *by conference win percentage” will part take part in the ACCCG.
This sort of language indicates that the ACC could go with a future unbalanced schedule or make a back door for ND or an unforeseen partial member.
(11-15-2023 02:47 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]https://theacc.com/news/2023/10/30/acc-a...model.aspx
Scroll down to the first graphic, did you notice the asterisk? “Top 2 teams *by conference win percentage” will part take part in the ACCCG.
This sort of language indicates that the ACC could go with a future unbalanced schedule or make a back door for ND or an unforeseen partial member.
That also takes into account future problems with cancelled games due to Hurricanes or Disease Outbreaks. IIRC in the last 5 years VT, NC State, GT, and Miami have all had games cancelled due to Hurricanes. Of course that is also just a press release and the actual text of the rule in the handbook will be what applies. The rules in the handbook likely have a line about minimum number of conference games played.
Here's a copy of the policy curtesy of Syracuse:
https://www.syracuse.com/orangefootball/...sions.html
Rule 2.12 a. in the ACC Handbook specifically prevents ND from competing in the ACC Football Title Game.
(11-15-2023 02:47 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]https://theacc.com/news/2023/10/30/acc-a...model.aspx
Scroll down to the first graphic, did you notice the asterisk? “Top 2 teams *by conference win percentage” will part take part in the ACCCG.
This sort of language indicates that the ACC could go with a future unbalanced schedule or make a back door for ND or an unforeseen partial member.
Allowing a school to be eligible for the ACC CG with less than a full conference schedule is the dumbest idea on the internet (not exaggerating), but it just won't go away.
Why were they compelled to add the asterisk to begin with when “Top 2 teams” would have more than sufficed?
Ok, I get that nobody wouid qualify if they did not play at least 8 conference games, but what of 9? What if the ND game started to count toward ACCCG eligibility?
(11-15-2023 03:40 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2023 02:47 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]https://theacc.com/news/2023/10/30/acc-a...model.aspx
Scroll down to the first graphic, did you notice the asterisk? “Top 2 teams *by conference win percentage” will part take part in the ACCCG.
This sort of language indicates that the ACC could go with a future unbalanced schedule or make a back door for ND or an unforeseen partial member.
Allowing a school to be eligible for the ACC CG with less than a full conference schedule is the dumbest idea on the internet (not exaggerating), but it just won't go away.
How do you define "full"?
If a school loses a conference game to a natural disaster should that be counted for or against them in the standings? If Clemson plays 8 games and UNC plays 9 because you Clemson refuse a 9th conference game how should that be handled? What if Clemson only wants to play a 9th conference game every two years - so as to align it with SC games?
If ESPN agrees to pay for one more conference game should those who do not want nine prevent the others from getting the money?
(11-15-2023 04:10 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]Why were they compelled to add the asterisk to begin with when “Top 2 teams” would have more than sufficed?
Ok, I get that nobody wouid qualify if they did not play at least 8 conference games, but what of 9? What if the ND game started to count toward ACCCG eligibility?
To show that it's not the top 2 CFP ranked teams, which some would assume
(11-15-2023 05:47 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2023 04:10 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]Why were they compelled to add the asterisk to begin with when “Top 2 teams” would have more than sufficed?
Ok, I get that nobody wouid qualify if they did not play at least 8 conference games, but what of 9? What if the ND game started to count toward ACCCG eligibility?
To show that it's not the top 2 CFP ranked teams, which some would assume
That could be, but the asterisk wouid seem so unnecessary. It should be assumed that the team with the highest conference win % wouid play in the conference championship game.
(11-15-2023 05:47 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2023 04:10 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]Why were they compelled to add the asterisk to begin with when “Top 2 teams” would have more than sufficed?
....
To show that it's not the top 2 CFP ranked teams, which some would assume
Of course. That was an actual proposal at one point, wasn't it? Having the CFP committee choose the two conference championship contenders?